Thanks Supreme Court. Finally, corporations and not just labor unions and 527s can run unlimited political ads. It is another huge blow to Dems. Let's see some of these liberal douches get elected when big business gets its say in the process. No wonder Chuckie Schumer is outraged. He knows his liberal cronies need a slanted playing field in order to win elections.

This has been a good week for the right. A previously unthinkable victory in leftyland MA and now this Supreme Court decision to level the election playing field. Delicious.

I agree this will level the playing field but I think it's bad for the country. I would rather see labor unions and corperations both be restricted on what they can contribute and I would like to see 527s go away completely.

Why restrict free speech? If a large corporation that employs 100,000 people wants to pay for an ad expressing their position why shouldn't they be allowed to? The way it was labor unions had no restrictions and big business had their hands tied. I side with free speech for all.

Why restrict free speech? If a large corporation that employs 100,000 people wants to pay for an ad expressing their position why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Because this is is the foundation of DC corruption. We went the wrong way today. Special interests, lobbies, corporation, unions et al should be banned and any politician accepting any money for their campaign should spend a day in jail for every dollar accepted.

That sounds like something that would happen in North Korea or China. I don't remember a lot of complaining when labor unions took money from paychecks and spent massive money to elect Democrats. Now, big business is free to spend and you guys want to outlaw all spending?

I applaud this decision. Finally, corporations and not just labor unions get a true say in the process.

I do see good in it. I think if a corporation wants to present an ad expressing their viewpoint on a political position or a candidate they should be free to do so. They are accountable to their shareholders and should not be told by the federal government they can't spend money to help elect politicians they find more friendly to their business. Business has been under attack for some time now and it about time they can to express their side of the story.

I don't think the Constitution says who can and can't contribute money in an election.

what you guys are missing is that mccain feingold restrictions pretty much guaranteed that you have to be a rich guy to seek public office. there are a LOT of great people out in the nation who would make GREAT public servants, but cannot afford on their own to get their message/name/ideas out there. and restrictions on how and from whom they can receive contributions guarantees you either needed to be very well connected, rich, or both.

The only objection I have is foreign countries contributing to American candidates and/or political groups. Obama got around that one a couple different ways during the 2008 election and received a lot of cash from China.

They are already laws in place that deal with bribes and such. Enforce the laws that are already on the books.

It isn't a "wrong". It is the process and everyone should be allowed to express their views without the government outlawing one side of the debate. I wouldn't want the left's message muzzled anymore than the rights. But, the left knows that in a fair fight their message will be defeated by common sense which is why Chuckie Schumer is all up in arms.

It's fascinating to watch liberals and professed libertarians come out AGAINST freedom of speech and, in the case of libertarians, FOR increased government infringement of liberty.

Here's the deal: someone ALWAYS can come up with a well-intentioned reason to restrict YOUR freedom of speech. The question is whether the phrase "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" is a fundamental principle limiting our government, or just a nice phase that can be ignored whenever smart people think it's a good idea to do so (for the very best reasons, of course)

So let's say for instance - that a Chinese company sets up an American corporation. They have a political agenda of wiping out the American steel industry (or whatever). They fund candidates that will support the offshoring of of the steel industry, while also spending an unlimited amount of money opposing any candidate that they don't like.

Since they are unregulated they can not only fund ads directly, but can create new US corporations that can also run unlimited ads and fund candidates.

Once the US steel industry (or whatever) is destroyed, these corporations shut down, and disappear.

I guess I'm stupid but how is that better than limiting campaign funding? I agree that the current system is broken but the labor unions you hate so much represent American citizens who live here. Your Utopian view of the "free market" opens the flood gates for foreign influence in US politics on a massive scale - the one thing you have an "objection" to.

It is good to know that the founding fathers and authors of the Constitution had greedy Big Business in mind when they Drafted the first amendment. After all i am positive that they wanted to make sure Wal-Mart could not be prosecuted for being a Lutheran.

One of these days y'all will realize that the world is really shades of gray and not black and white.

Labor unions represent SOME of the interests of SOME of their members, who may or may not be citizens of the U.S. (and, increasingly, who are here illegally). Corporations represent some of the interests of some of their owners, most of whom, directly or indirectly, are .... yep, citizens.

If you have to go far as to construct a scenario around sham corporations to support your position, you don't have much of a position. Here's my counter-example: I REPEATEDLY have heard labor leaders publicly proclaim - actually, brag - that (Democratic) politicians OWE the union legislative favors, like the EFCA. So have you. I've NEVER heard any corporation make any such claim. If you're really worried about vote-buying and political corruption, why not go after the most blatant abuses first, instead of giving them a free pass?

We should go after the labor unions ability to endorse and contribute and run ads and whatever. that was the step that should have been taken.

Our campaign process SHOULD be equally funded for all campaigners. All should have equal air time to distribute their message. As I eluded to above. these people are supposed to represent us, the citizens. We are the ones that elect them, we are the ones they are supposed to answer to, not corporations, not unions, not MADD or GLADD or any other special interest group.

Labor unions should be sued by members that don't want THEIR money going to political agendas they don't support. It isn't the government's role to say who can and can't contribute. Labor unions are free to endorse politicians. Now corporations are free to endorse politicians. Now businesses that are directly affected by anti-business liberal policies can run ads explaining why they don't support a candidate.

"Labor unions should be sued by members that don't want THEIR money going to political agendas they don't support. It isn't the government's role to say who can and can't contribute. Labor unions are free to endorse politicians. Now corporations are free to endorse politicians. Now businesses that are directly affected by anti-business liberal policies can run ads explaining why they don't support a candidate.

The more you restrict the process the more unfair it is...."

That's fine, lets also alow the stockholders of said corporations sue if they don't want THEIR money going to political agendas they don't support.

Actually, when it comes to the 1st Amendment, I see things in black and yellow - elegant black script on venerable yellow parchment. People who have trouble with clear statements (including the minority in Citizens United who in have as much trouble understanding simple language as you do) give us decisions like Plessy, Korematsu, etc. But, you know, those decisions seemed so right at the time....

BTW, the Court upheld the disclosure requirement, which I think also was correct. I have faith in my fellow citizens to be able to make appropriate decisions taking into account who is behind political ads.

Scott- last I checked stockholders can do this thing called "sell" if they aren't digging the company politics. But, can a union iron worker or electrician say they don't want to pay union dues? Nah, I don't think so.... Granted, most of them are mindless union pawns that follow a "cheat sheet" the union sends home on election day but there are indeed good, educated union members that may disagree with the union leadership and their Democrat politics.

No, they're not, and neither do the unions get member approval for political campaigns.

The difference is that stockholders can walk away if they don't like the company's political contributions (or not even buy the stock in the first place). Union members cannot walk away from the union (or refuse to join) if the job is in a closed shop.

Again, the disclosure requirement in McCain-Feingold was upheld. Sources of funding for ads must be disclosed.

But here's the bigger point. We've had McCain-Feingold for awhile now. Are you - is anybody - willing to argue the politicians are less corrupt and more responsive to the people than they were before the law was enacted? Cause, ya know, I'd sure like to hear that argument.

"We've had McCain-Feingold for awhile now. Are you - is anybody - willing to argue the politicians are less corrupt and more responsive to the people than they were before the law was enacted? Cause, ya know, I'd sure like to hear that argument."

I would too. Business is not the villain. Corrupt politicians are. An uninformed electorate allows the politicians to get away with alot. Disclosure is the key. Let anyone spend whatever they want on political speech. Just require that every dime be accounted for and publish it prominently on the web etc. Then people can make intelligent decisions regarding who they want to vote for based on who is supporting them.

Who said big business was a bad thing? Can we all agree that the very large majority of people in this country are greatly influenced in their decisions by advertising? That said how is it beneficial to have any advertising campaigns for politicians?

I think the solution is more along the lines of no commercials et al but rather a string of heavily attended, publicly available debates and forums to get the various messages out to the public.

I also think that we can take a cue from France and not have such a long timeframe between the end of the primaries and the general election. This would alleviate the special interest groups from hammering one canditate while heavily endorsing another.

Why not ban all advertising altogether then? Let beer makers get together and debate their beers in public attended debates. Global warming propaganda ads should be banned and debates could be scheduled in major cities with both sides of the story.

That just doesn't make sense to me.... Ban political ads? Again, sounds un-American to me. People that WANT to understand the issues will manage to get informed. People that don't won't. I want to hear all viewpoints and ads from the private sector are fine with me.

Ban political advertising? Really? Give people less information before they vote? Then how will the electorate get information on issues and candidates' positions on those issues?

Debates? We haven't seen a true "debate" by candidates in ages. These events are orchestrated precisely to prevent transmitting any detailed substantive information. In addition, only the candidates get to talk at debates. How will other people have an opportunity to express their views if there are no ads?

Having said all this, I must admit some misgivings about the potential result of the decision WRT campaign contributions and buying favorable treatment from politicians. I'm not ready to sacrifice the 1st Amendment, but I really would like to see a law that:

1. Strictly limits the use of campaign contributions to the recipient candidate's actual campaign costs; and

2. Requires every dime of unused campaign contributions to be turned over to the federal treasury within 30 days of the election.

Basically every liberal minded person I hear starts sentences with Big Business and Big Oil or Big this and that. Then they continue with how they are screwing so and so. They just parrot what someone told them without any substance. There is an in between. Nothing is always bad or always good. Big businesses and corporations are very important to job creation and growth. Obama and his company like to play class warfare and use Corporations as the boogey man.

I am not very smart, but I believe I am smart enough to see through some of these stupid ads. Too bad much of the general public is not that smart. I think the Supreme Court has it right on. Let everyone advertise, but identify who the advertisers are.

I don't understand how so many get worked up over the repeal of a law that was implemented in 2002, as if we weren't able to hold a fair election until this "amazing" law came about. How were we able to fairly elect people before 2002? Am I missing something?

Kind of reminds me of the the "urgency" behind getting healthcare reform passed. Somehow we survived over 200 years without universal healthcare, but all of the sudden it has to be passed immediately or the entire country will instantly disintegrate.

"Kind of reminds me of the the "urgency" behind getting healthcare reform passed. Somehow we survived over 200 years without universal healthcare, but all of the sudden it has to be passed immediately or the entire country will instantly disintegrate"

We may, my insurance premium in 1987, (my wife keeps records for way too long) was $125.00 per month, with $250.00 deductible. She quit a job 3 years ago because she was paying $1200.00 a month for insurance with $250.00 deductible, but was bringing home $500.00 a month. 2008 new job, same pay but insurance $450.00 a month. Just went up to $850.00 a month January 1st. $2000.00 deductible crappy insurance.

So ya, if you don't think that if we don't do something about healthcare, that it's no big deal, then you have your head in the sand.

This country is going to go down if they don't fix this problem. (unfortunately the democrat plan was horrible). But the republicans don't want to do anything, and don't think there is a real problem.

What's also funny about this Scott Brown election, is that he supported the Massachusetts healthcare bill and thinks it works great, but screw the rest of us, typical Republican

I agree that the lobbyist crap is at an absolutely ridiculous level, but that's kind of a different issue, isn't it? As far as I can tell, this law had nothing to do with guys from Exxon buying vacations for congressmen. I still don't understand how we're any worse off than we were in 2001 as far as election spending goes.

On a side note, I'll plug the idea of term limits once again as a way to put a nice dent in the lobbyist problem. It's a lot harder to "bribe" a fresh face that's been in Washington for one year than it is to "bribe" one that's been there for 45.

So ya, if you don't think that if we don't do something about healthcare, that it's no big deal, then you have your head in the sand.

Luckily, I didn't say that at all. I was merely pointing out the fact that it is not an emergency that needs to be addressed immediately, especially in this economy. That just doesn't make any sense at all fiscally speaking.

quote:

But the republicans don't want to do anything, and don't think there is a real problem.

Simply untrue. Republicans have put out many ideas to improve, not overhaul, the current system, but since libs don't like those ideas, it's easier for them to just keep saying Republicans haven't offered any ideas even though they know they're being dishonest. They wouldn't want to do any crazy research like looking at the GOP website: http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

What does "Big Business" even have to do with it? If you think that's all McCain-Feingold affects, read the Citizens United opinion.

The focal point in the press is an an scathing documentary film about Hillary Clinton that was available on pay-per-view for those who chose to pay for it. The producer was a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. No big corporation was involved, and the film itself wasn't even on broadcast TV.

What's more, the FEC did not rule on the movie itself. It ruled on the legality of ads on broadcast TV that informed viewers they could watch the film on DirecTV, for a price. That's it; the brief ads for the movie were illegal. Why? Because the movie itself was intended to "inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her."

Does anyone here want to defend a legal prohibition of TV ads informing people that they can watch - at their own expense - political commentary in an election season - if they choose to?

I read the article, and it's an inside baseball" from what I can tell. It does not deal with the facts of the actual case that was before the SCt. Those facts are important. What's even more important is that four justices were willing to trash 1A rights on these facts.

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of infringing on 1A rights of 299,999,465 Americans, how about tightening up the enforcement of corruption rules that apply to the other 535?

So the most important takeaway is that 4 justices disagree with what you would do in their shoes? Somehow I doubt they see their opinions as "trashing first amendment rights." Perhaps they don't think constitutional rights apply to corporations and unions, or perhaps they were less inclined than others to overrule two recent precendents. For a hundred years the court has not recognized corps and unions as having individuals' rights. Do corps/unions have the right to bear arms?

As for your second statement, it sounds to me like you have less issue with the courts and more with the legislature. What you're asking for is not the courts' role - unless you are calling for judicial activism lol.

Federal courts can only decide "cases or controversies." One implication of this Constitutional limitation is that court decisions must be founded on the specific parties, the specific facts, and the specific dispute before the court. For me, a key "take-away" was that the article said nothing about the "case or controversy" before the court in Citizens United - nothing about the parties and nothing about the facts. It's interesting enough, but I think the the analysis is shallow and superficial.

Are you okay with the fact that McCain-Feingold allows the banning of books? That it creates an exemption for the "institutional press" - so Fox News can comment in any way it wants on political matters and candidates, but labor unions, the NAACP, and the ACLU can't? And speaking of the ACLU, are you aware that they filed an amicus brief in Citizens United? Does it make any difference to you that in this case, even the ACLU argued that McC-F violates the First Amendment? How's that for irony?

As for my suggestion, of course you're right that it is beyond a court's authority. I was taking a broader look at the issue of corrosion and corruption in the political process, which was the illness that McC-F was supposed to cure.

And I think there's a more effective approach, and it happens to have the additional benefit of being consistent with the First Amendment. Think of it this way: if a town has a problem with burglaries, what's the best approach - pass an ordinance on the types of locks homeowners must use, how many locks they must have, and require them to use a security service? Or might it be better to strengthen the law against burglary?

Looks like most people agree this was a huge mistake. It's nice to see most folks from all sides agree for once:

"...opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling."

I'm still not sure why some folks have no problem with corporations having so much financial influence on our elections.

"Sen. John McCain, one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance law struck down by Court's decision and one of its few prominent Republican opponents, may have been prophetic when he predicted Americans would turn against the Court. McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."

the likes of Oprah W. should also not be allowed to DAILY push for a candidate during an election.....

Agreed but how do you stop it? The sheeple flock to her just to hear her opinion. For Pete's sake, if she reco's a book, a week later it is a best seller. She has that vagina syncing down to a science.

IMO the only way to stop that and all of this corporate, union, lobby backing et al is to move to a system like France that provides equal coverage and debate opportunity between all parties and then has the general election 2 weeks after the primary. this negates the possibility for 99% of campaign buffalo chips.

"move to a system like France that provides equal coverage and debate opportunity between all"

I am totally against big government, but this is something I totally agree with. No more private funding for political ads, equal time for ALL candidates not just the major parties. I think there were like 8-10 candidates on my Presidential voting slip. Let's hear about and from every single one of them equally.

That is a fantastic system, and it is very friendly to alternative parties. I believe the only requirement for a party to qualify is to recieve a minimum percentage of the popular vote in a prior election ( i think 5% but may be wrong) If you do not hit that percentage, you are out the next cycle.

That would stimulate change and encourage alternative thinking and alternative parties... but what are the odds of the big 2 giving up the built in home field advantage? I would think a snowball has a better chance in hell.